Does Princess Beatrice fly under the radar, or do most people just not care enough to track her movements? Beatrice has never and will never get the same level of scrutiny as Prince William, Harry or Duchess Kate. But Beatrice, 26 years old, is still sixth in line to the throne (until Kate gives birth in April) and it would be interesting if she could find her niche in the world and in public life. Prince Charles wants to downgrade his brothers and their children from public life, and Beatrice and Eugenie rarely get high-profile royal work at this point. As such, both princesses have taken various “jobs” that just seem like high-profile internships for the well-connected.
In January 2014, Beatrice took a position with Sony Pictures. She was being paid £20,000 to be a “coordinating producer at the firm’s London offices.” She quietly quit that job in December, in the middle of the Sony Hack. I missed this story when it came out a few weeks ago, sorry. Since leaving the position, Beatrice has not gotten another job. Instead, she’s gone a series of holidays. First she went to a Swiss ski chalet with her dad and some friends. Then she went to St. Barts with her boyfriend, Dave Clark. Then she returned to England for a few weeks, then she and Dave flew back to St. Barts. And right now, she’s vacationing with her sister and her cousin Harry at another Swiss ski resort. Read this shade from the Daily Mail:
Clearly not fussed by her public image as workshy, Princess Beatrice is enjoying her fourth holiday in just over a month. Joined by Prince Harry and her sister Princess Eugenie, the 26-year-old jetsetter has returned to the upmarket Swiss ski resort of Verbier, which she last visited in December after quitting her £20,000-a-year job at Sony Entertainment Pictures. She flew off to the Caribbean twice in January, too.
The royal cousins are thought to be enjoying the amenities of Prince Andrew and his former wife Sarah Ferguson’s £13 million luxury chalet. The seven-bedroom property, complete with indoor swimming pool and a staff of six, was purchased by Beatrice’s parents shortly before Christmas.
Beatrice, the sixth in line to the throne, celebrated New Year’s Eve on the Caribbean island of St Barts with her boyfriend of seven years, Virgin Galactic executive Dave Clark, 32. She then returned to St Barts at the end of January, prompting critics to label her a ‘benefits scrounger’. In response, Beatrice’s friends protested that she was soon to accept another job offer.
A Buckingham Palace spokesman says: ‘We would not comment on the time that Princess Beatrice or her family spend privately.’
When I see the Mail using the word “workshy” to describe someone other than Duchess Kate or Prince William, I tend to wonder if William’s press office had a hand in it. Yes, William hasn’t worked in more than two months. But hey, at least he’s not taking four vacations in two months! And hey, at least he’s throwing his cousin under the bus.
But should we label Beatrice with the same “workshy” label that we give to Kate and Will? She is sort of a benefits scrounger too – she still lives in the Royal Lodge of Windsor Castle, and she has a four-bedroom apartment at St. James Palace. If you live in a castle, you must work. I think that should apply to all of the princes and princesses.
Photos courtesy of WENN.
Must be nice, huh?
I agree that they should be working if they live in a taxpayer-paid property.
I’d totally be taking all those “benefits” if I was her, though. Are you kidding me? It sounds awesome! St. Bart’s twice in a month? Wouldn’t even have to unpack my suitcase. 🙂
I was thinking the same.
This generation may well end the monarchy. I wouldn’t blame their “subjects” for growing disgusted at this freeloading bunch of lazies.
I agree was the previous generation as lazy as this one?
People make a lot of jokes about Prince Charles but his Dutchy Originals line is actually pretty good. And he restored a garden somewhere (my mum has visited it) which she said was beautifully done. He’s also done his fair share of hospital visits and diplomatic visits and there are reports of him genuinely listening to people and offering advice.
And Prince Phillip reintroduced deer into Windsor park (which is open to the public and a great place to walk). It’s awesome. We used to live near there and you do get deer stampeding through the place.
So I think past generations may not have appeared especially busy, but did engage in their pet projects in a way that showed more sensitivity and thought.
this is just stuff I’ve read though, no idea how true it is (apart from the excellent deer).
The Queen and Prince Phillip are the only ones who work hard.
I don’t think that’s quite fair Mia V. I agree that none of them slogs out a 40 hour week by any stretch, and they all live very well. But Anne, Charles, Sophie and even Camilla do their share.
The Queen still has cousins who perform royal duties. The Duke of Kent (Prince Edward) is 79 and had to recover from a stroke about two years, but he still works. His 78 year old sister, Princess Alexandra still performs the occasional engagement and she has rheumatoid arthritis (their younger brother Prince Michael of Kent is not considering a “working royal), and their cousin the Duke of Gloucester and his wife all work regularly. The Duke of Gloucester is 70 and is youngest of the Queen’s paternal first cousins and for what it’s worth he’s only four years older than the Prince of Wales.
The media landscape has changed too… with social media, the royals can’t control press the way they did previously.
Agree.
On a side note… Her boyfriend is so hot. Good guys, good family, hot looking… Yea.
Agreed, GoodNamesAllTaken, and it can’t come soon enough. Monarchies in 2015? Nope nope nope.
Hmmm…the members of this young adult generation of the British royal family are beginning to remind me a lot of the Kennedy cousins during the 80’s – what with their expensive educations they do nothing with, the handed-to-them high prestige yet undemanding jobs, endless ski holidays and tropical vacations, and zero interest in the family’s tradition of public service.
Beatrice does charity work on her personal time and is patron of seven charities. I suspect she’d like to be a full-time working royal but Charles will not allow it.
I think that’s quite short sighted on Charles’ part given that 2/3 of his family is not exactly pulling their weight.
She may be in the line of succession but at least she is not playing the pr Game like say duchess kate. Obviously kate’s people read all the negative comments and make her “work” now. Beatrice is simply living the life of her peers and since she is Not directly funded by the civil list I see no problem with it. Since Charles doesn’t want the York Sisters to Play a role in his coming streamlined monarchy they have to find something that keeps them occupied.
ITA. They are kept from public duties and as soon as the POW becomes King, the rest of them will go away or their roles will diminish.
The only problem I have with Charles’ plan is that his eldest son and daughter in law are so lazy they will never have the same workload the rest of the working royals have combined. At this point, I truly believe Harry is the only hope, unless he marries someone like Kate.
I have to add that Beatrice does a LOT of charity work…it’s just that someone (QEII, KP, Charles, Gray Men) don’t consider it official royal work, so it doesn’t get counted on the official annual tally. So, IMO, she gets a bit of a bad rap for seeming like she doesn’t do official duties when she does a lot of charity work in her personal time.
In fact, it seems like she wants to be a FT royal but isn’t being allowed to. I think she is in a bit of a pickle. I also think she and Eug get a really bad rap because people hate their parents…which seems really unfair to me.
Maybe Harry will marry Emma Watson! That would be fab!
POW : Prisoner of War NOT prince of Wales.
“If you live in a castle, you must work. I think that should apply to all of the princes and princesses.” Tell it to Charles who is the one preventing her from royal duties.
She’s a private citizen with a trust fund, not a working royal. I’d go with this being the new PR guy getting to work making others look bad. There was a follow-up article with rebuttal.
“Daily Mail January 31
Workshy? Not me, says Bea, I’m up for TWO jobs
A friend of the Princess said last night that Sony bosses insisted she and other employees take time off. ‘Beatrice’s job was semi closed down by North Korea when her social security details were splashed all over the pages of American newspapers,’ he said. As a result of the hacking, she resigned. Beatrice, 26, has since been approached by headhunters, resulting in two job offers, one with a reputable technology company, and a further two interviews. Sony is also said to be attempting to persuade her to stay with them by offering to promote her above her current position.”
The article goes on, but I cannot get links to post.
That’s interesting, Nota. I’m surprised the DM reported something positive about her. I know there were concerns the hack revealed too much about her, and Andrew was reportedly lobbying for more security for her.
Links have been wonky for a while. Wish we could link to it.
@ TCWR
Princess Beatrice and Eugenie have two sources of income: their own work and their parents. As neither of them earns enough to fund their lavish lifestyles it is their parents who pay. And as Fergie seem bancrupt most of the time it is her father Prince Andrew who funds his daughters. And Prince Andrew gets a handsome allowance from the civil list.
In other words: Princess Beatrice gets money via her father from the Civil list.
Their trust fund is from the Queen Mother. Andrew pays market value rent on the apartment, but who knows with what money. Is if from his Sovereign Grant allowance or the mystery money source that funded the Swiss acquisition?
From what I’ve heard (and correct me if I’m wrong) but doesn’t Charles want to cut Andrew’s “allowance” down considerably? I think once Charles hits the throne, Andrew is is for a world of hurt. Anne and Edward seem to have their own things going on, Andrew is the true lazy one of the Queen’s children.
Of course this is probably why he hangs around such rich douchebags like Jeffrey Epstein.
ETA: It seems like it is a trust fund and not an allowance. Thanks to notasugarhere and others for their information.
Bea undoubtedly receives a mother lode of deeply discounted goods and services i.e. designer clothes and accessories, products and vacation packages.
Imo it’s very unfair that the value of celeb freebies and discounts are not accounted for or taxed. It is about the only new form of taxation I would endorse.
To add isn’t Eugenie a favorite grandchild of the Queen?
Favorites plays a role in who gets some extra cash in their birthday cards.
MinnFinn
“Freebies” are too difficult to track. I would be for it too, but I took an econ class years ago that addressed this. The amount needed to track the items and to prove they weren’t gifts would far outweigh what is gained in taxing them. And it would open a flood gate of redefining “gifts” leaving some families that give items as true gifts through an employment connection vulnerable to heavy taxing.
We as a class tried arguing the point that it should be taxed and our professors argued against it. We collectively threw up our hands in defeat on the 3rd debate meeting.
My understanding is likely outdated, but I can’t imagine things would have changed too much.
I think they started taxing the gift bags people receive at Hollywood award shows, like the Academy Awards, a few years ago. I do not know if it was successful or not.
@ notasugarhere
1. The Queen mother was in debts when she died so how did she manage to put up a trust fund for her granddaughter Beatrice?
And by the way the Queen had to pay back her mother’s debts (the Queen mother’s debts). And she did that with the money she received from the taxpayer …
2. The Queen mother received an allowance from the taxpayer or from the taxpayer via the Queen and therefore Beatrice’s upkeep is paid for by the taxpayer.
she scares the life out of me, those eyes are HUGE.
As HUGE as her ability not to work – even her mother has more work bone than she does.
Come the revolution….
Lol yes they are, and I think sometimes she must be high because they pop out more than usual.
It’s really horrid to make such a comment about something she cannot help.
Those big eyes are a Hanoverian trait, shared by most of the family. Victoria had them, Queen Alexandra, Tsar Nicholas, George 5, Edward 7 all had them.
More recently Lord Frederick (Prince Michael of Kent’s son) has them as does Prince Andrew.
There is nothing wrong with her eyes except genetic inheritance. She was born with them, and she it’s not something she can correct.
I don’t know if it’s her eyes or her mouth, both maybe, but there’s something I always notice as big on her face.
Maeliz: Beatrice’s teeth are also a family trait.
Andrew, Anne, William, Zara, Sarah Chatto/David Linley (Princess Margaret’s daughter + son) and David Linley’s kids all have big teeth.
Beatrice and William have small mouths which makes their teeth look bigger unlike their various relations.
I keep wondering if she has Graves disease every time I see her eyes. Yes, I’m a geek.
She’s a redheaded Queen Victoria.
I´ve seen her in person once. Her eyes look normal and that was a big surprise for me. I expected her to look all eyes and teeth. She is a normal looking girl IMO, but extremely unphotogenic.
Exactly sometimes they look smaller and other times they pop out like she is high, like this happened to Carson Daily before.
She’s really lovely in person. To a degree you can see this in video. She’s just unphotogenic in stills.
It’s really unfair to attack someone on their traits they were born into. Attack them on excessive plastic surgery done for vanity reasons, but not how they are.
Shameful how people only wantto attack someones physical features they were born with. Very low.
Maybe I am focusing on the wrong thing but aren’t Andrew and Sarah always crying poormouth?
Aren’t they ALWAYS broke. If they are so broke how did they afford to buy a ski chalet?
Well, their daughter must be pretty poor – £20K a year for someone based in London is not going to get you far. No doubt she jacked it in to get something better-paid so that she can make it on her own ?!
I am sure that was just pocket change to her, you cannot leave like that in London on 20k.
I also think 20,000 sounds like an entry level administrative assistant wage. It is almost poverty level.
Maybe the queen helped pay for it isn’t Andrew her favorite?
Beatrice (and Andrew I think) is a fundie. She’s got a trust fund. She probably doesn’t need to work but does either because she wants to or it looks good to have a little job. Not sure which.
I would like to know how they could afford to buy such an expensive chalet too, WITH servants!
As The Baroness always says, it helps when your mother is the Queen. Makes it easier to get what you want. Even when you don’t appear to have visible means of support.
Man these royals have such cushy lives. It must be nice to be an unemployed 26 year old who can still afford to vacation all over the world. Bea can wear the nicest clothes and doesn’t have to pay rent and other bills. She’s not worried at all about finding another ‘job’ like why should she. But remember, the royals really do have a tough life, they work hard and they’re just like the rest of us!
She’s a trust fund baby. In that way, she’s like any other trust fund baby, it isn’t related to being royal.
4 vacations in two months.
I have done the same when I was between jobs. Hell my friend who lives in The Netherlands takes a vacation every three weeks while working four days a week!
Not that shocking.
I am jealous. I only get two weeks off per year 🙁 Working 5 days a week, from 9 am to 6 pm.
You must live in the US (as do I).
I live in Argentina. Things get slightly better after 10 years at the same company (you get 3 weeks off).
But it’s almost impossible to remain in the same place for so long unless it’s a big corporation full of opportunities.
I’ve always admired this about Europeans. Work to live not live to work like in America. But we really do only get 2 weeks paid vacation a year if we are lucky. And I do so love to travel. Two weeks just goes out the window so quickly. It took 10 years in my government job to acquire a three week vacation. Now that was worth having been there so long! Now that I’ve relocated I’m starting all over again. I’ll be lucky if I get a vacation at all in the next year. Probably just the odd day off here and there.
My goodness Ginger, that’s appalling.
We (UK) have 6weeks statutory holiday, plus several bank holidays a year which translate into 4/3 day weekends as follows
Easter = 4 days weekend (though some people choose to work Good Friday)
1st May = 3 day weekend
End of May = 3 day weekend
End of August = 3 Day weekend
Christmas = 2 days off
New Year’s day = 2 days off
Most people choose to take one of their statutory weeks during the week between Christmas and New Year’s day which makes that period longer.
It helps that Europe is a skip and a hop with cheap airfares/hotels, so it’s easy to go many weekends.
Where the royals with jobs are concerned, unless one can track exactly how much time they have off, I don’t always jump to the conclusion that their holidays are the result of being workshy eg Harry was at this ski holiday for the weekend and back to work on the monday (gotta love twitter for tracking him!)
Ha, same thing in Argentina!
I managed to get 12 days off because I combined my 10 paid days with 2 public holidays. And this translates into not resting because I want to do as much as possible while abroad.
Europeans really do know how to live a good life.
We accrue hours where I am so you get so many hours to use for illness or holiday. It works out to about 2 weeks although if I don’t take any time off it will increase to more than that. I can take more time off if I choose; I just don’t get paid for it.
LAK, I had one job where I didn’t get a day off for a year. I didn’t know any better and really should have reported them to the Labor Department. The 2nd year I worked there, I got 1 week off. No sick days. No personal days. We worked all the damn time. I work for myself now and you can be damn sure I take vacation days. I look back on that time and realize that was nothing but slave labor masquerading as a medical clinic.
“I’ve always admired this about Europeans. Work to live not live to work like in America.”
YES! The only way you can really enjoy lots of time off is if you have a university job.
@lAK SIX WEEKS?
if you’ve worked in the public sector and long term service.
most in private sector get 4 weeks + stats.
however, teachers and lecturers….. #toomuchtimeoff
The law is 5.6 weeks paid holiday in the UK and employers can include the 8 public holidays in that, so it would be 4 weeks plus public holidays. That’s the legal minimum. Low paid jobs tend to get this. Public sector jobs and better paid jobs often have more and often on an accruing scale. Mr Sixer gets 31 days – 8 public holidays, 3 days between Christmas and New Year for the company shut down, 20 days to take when he likes.
It’s definitely 5.6 weeks INCLUDING bank holidays – sorry LAK but you’re wrong that Bank Hols are additive. 28 days in TOTAL. So the minimum you can offer is 4 weeks + bank hols (or for some jobs like shift work, retail etc where you need to work bank hols it’s easier just to offer 28 days rather than forcing employees to take leave on bank hols).
It does seems to be market standard for many mid to large corporates to offer 5 weeks + bank hols (i.e. 33 days in total) so you do get to the 6 week mark on that calculation – but that’s not the law, and there are plenty of places that stick to the 4wk + BH calcs.
LAK I don’t believe you live in the UK. The statutory minimum here is FOUR weeks annual holiday leave (not six), which obviously equates to 20 working days. Plus the 8 bank holidays. That is the legal minimum you have to have, which works out as five and a half weeks’ annnual leave per year (28 days). The legal minimum holiday for a full time worker in the UK is therefore 28 days. Still a lot more than in the United States, but not quite as great as you’re making out.
Don’t forget, the US has a heck of a lot more bank holidays than we do too.
Bluebell: Perhaps you need to talk to your HR dept about the time off work you clearly aren’t taking because 28 days isn’t counted as consecutive days that include weekends.
28/5 days of the work week, weekends not counted = 5.6 weeks (which I rounded up to 6wks)
Further, are you telling me that your company doesn’t give you Good Friday or Easter Monday or that you don’t take off the two bank holidays in May (beginning and end), august bank holiday or Christmas day + boxing day or New Year’s day off??
Those days are in addition to the statutory days above.
I’d like to know what country YOU live in.
Penny: I agree that private companies don’t always give the full credit as far as holidays.
I’ve worked mostly in private sector where I received 4wks, but I’ve had the odd six months in public sector and they all took advantage of the full entitlement.
LAK I’m not going to argue with you. I know it doesn’t include the weekends, that’s why I said 28 WORKING days which works out at five and a half weeks. Duh. Also, that includes bank holidays. You said we get six weeks (an overstatement in itself) PLUS bank holidays in addition. That’s not the case. The 28 working days holiday days includes the bank holidays as part of the entitlement. I’m 100% sure and willing to bet my life on it.
I’m nearly 30 years old and I’ve had loads of jobs. I think I know what I’m talking about. You get 20 WORKING days plus the EIGHT bank holidays = 28 working days. That’s the legal minimum.
https://www.gov.uk/holiday-entitlement-rights/entitlement
Blubell: i’m a lot older than you and have worked in many companies too, no need to turn this into a pissing contest.
I’ve always had the weeks off + the bank holidays. Bank holidays have never counted as part of the holiday entitlement in any company i’ve worked for, and I have always been briefed on my statutory rights by the HR dept of those companies at the start of each job and what they are giving me.
I always round up the 5.6wks as a matter of habit not because I mean to deceive, so for that I apologise, but I stand by the rest of my statement as clearly you stand by yours.
All of this obscures my original point which was given the number of holidays we are entitled to compared to the USA, I don’t always assume the royals with real world jobs are vacationing excessively and therefore not working at those jobs.
FWIW – I do think there are quite a few jobs in the UK that give more than the minimum holiday requirements. Most public sector jobs have extra days with service, as do many, many private sector employers. My brother has been at the same (commercial) place for a good few years now and is up to 35 days plus bank holidays. Sadly, the low paid and service jobs – sadly, where most of the new jobs are being created these days – are the ones that stick to the bare minimum – and even seek to get around them with zero hours contracts and the like.
BTW: are US workers paid for public holidays?
I don’t think I’ve been in a job where I’ve had less than five weeks holiday (not including the bank/public holidays) for about 20 years. Six weeks, including the bank holidays, sounds about right, so I think LAK had a fair point. I’ve worked across the public and retail sector, and for agencies, and have changed careers, so I’ve had a real mix of jobs and six weeks minimum sounds about right. My current job has 25 days that I can choose to take whenever, 8 public and bank days and another 8 organisational closure days, where we get the paid time off, but can’t choose when to take them (they’re usually around the Easter and Christmas holidays).
Plus in the UK, sick days don’t count as any sort of holiday leave, that’s a completely different set of days. However, as far as I know, sickness pay does rely on how long you’ve worked for the employer.
It’s up to UK employers what sick pay they offer, but if your employer doesn’t offer it, the state steps in and pays you a small amount for 6 months. It’s a pitiful amount though – £90 a week or similar? After 6 months, you make a total welfare claim. Again, the “good” employers and the public sector are more generous.
Mr Sixer had 8 weeks in total off last year – two separate carpal tunnel surgeries, one of which had complications – and his firm covered all of it with full pay. It didn’t affect his holiday entitlement.
In the US, time off on the official bank and federal holidays is rare if your employer if for profit.
The generous vacay and paid maternity leave in Europe is such a mystery to this American. Will benefits have to be reduced as pensioner numbers climb and birthrates stay low? We face a similar ageing population problem this side of the pond for funding our government pension (Social Security in the USA).
I’ve linked to the official government website which backs me up and you’re still arguing against me?
The 5.6 weeks holiday INCLUDES bank holidays. How is that not clear?
All these people saying they have more – please tell me where you work so I can apply, I want your jobs!
Bluebell: I don’t think anyone’s arguing about the legal minimum. We’re talking about practice. I just did a very quick Google and found this for average entitlements in the UK :
“When bank and public holidays are taken into account, the median annual leave entitlement for 2011 is 33 days, while the mean is slightly higher again, at 33.6 days. The public sector median annual holiday entitlement (including bank/public holidays) is 35 days, compared with 33 days at private sector organisations.”
http://www.xperthr.co.uk/editors-choice/benchmarking-annual-leave-entitlements-in-2011/110163/
Minnfinn: so public holidays aren’t really all that public?! There have been quite a lot of retrenchments on social provisions throughout Western Europe since the financial crash. The right wing blame the scrounging poor and the left wing blame the tax-dodging rich/corporations. And the impact of an ageing population is quite a frequent discussion topic. We tend to focus that on health and social care, however, what with us all having universal healthcare and all. Hence the endless nannying on public health issues – annoying but probably wise. Also remember that you guys spend about 4% of your GDP on defence. The rest of us spend about half that, many even less. That could certainly fund a good few social programs.
Sixer, Haha 4% of gdp for ‘defense’ aka policing and bullying around the globe. I wish we were like the Swiss a la mind our own business and restrict our military to our own soil.
But yeah paid time off for all public holidays is so 1980’s. For full-timers at for profit employers typical paid time off after 1 year of service is accrual of 10 vacation days and 5 sick days per year plus 6 paid public holidays (Jan 1, Memorial Day in May, July 4, Labor Day in Sept, Thanksgiving day in Nov and Dec 25.)
Paid maternity leave is very very rare. Some employers allow banking of unused sick and vacay which can be drawn as paid time off for maternity or paternity leave.
Many employers don’t differentiate between sick and vacation pay. I despise that policy b/c it is massive incentive for sick people coming to work and spreading around their illness.
MinnFinn – I’m no fan of my own country’s foreign adventures, so I sympathise! But you know – nothing is nirvana. Cost of living is very high in Western Europe. Petrol here (gas, whatever wrong name you guys call it!) is well over $6 a gallon (if I’ve got all the conversions right) of which 75% is tax. The average house in Britain costs 11x the average annual salary. The doctor is free. We get plenty of holidays. But we do pay in other ways, of course. I won’t lie though: I prefer things the way they are this side of the Pond. Not all of my compatriots would agree, however.
If there’s 2 people on this thread currently that have proven over and over again they live where they claim it’s Sixer and LAK.
I’ve worked for an insurance company that worked me over 40 hours a week without overtime. My hours were not billable without going over budget so I worked for free. And If I was snowed in or their was a state wide travel ban we had to work from home. and if we couldn’t work from home we had to mark a day off of our vacation time.
My point is nothing is as you think it is. And The states can be awful for those holding jobs here. Now i’m per diem at a private facility,
Sixer in a side by side comparison you have it easier. A imo your countryside is lovely while you only pay for a handful of freeloaders to live in luxury. We have a giant system with their families that get lifelong care in some cases. And those with lifelong care can be replaced by others that also get such care, but the number keeps going up. Not reduced.
In this day and age, you need to work when you’re living off taxpayers. I don’t care if there’s a tiara on your head.
She’s not living off the taxpayers, she’s technically living off her trust fund.
But she does live in subsidized housing, no? The only difference between her and Kate is Kate has security. In terms of strict taxpayer funding, that is.
I said, “technically”! I don’t know how much they pay in rent for the apartment, but after the public scandal about the rents at KP, they probably pay more in rent than previous generations. Prince and Princess Michael of Kent come to mind.
And she enjoys all the perks of her father’s staff and servants for which she pays nothing.
She doesn’t live with her father. She lives in an apartment for which he pays market value rent, we just don’t know if he uses his Sovereign Grant money or the mystery money he uses for things like buying Swiss chalets.
I didn’t count housing in your “technically”, nas. 🙂 But that apartment got a taxpayer funded renovation when she moved in. Yes, I know it was a few years ago, but she got one too. And daddy’s paying the rent? At market value? That would surprise me. He may be paying rent, but I bet it’s not what a landlord would charge for the same sized apartment next door. I thought she had her own trust fund which one would think would give her an income so she can pay her own living expenses.
Given the amount of flack Kate gets for pretty much the same thing — even factoring in the difference in position — I’m surprised people give Beatrice so much leeway. But that’s just me and we can agree to disagree on her.
I understand if she wants to get away from her father’s bad press, it has to be hard. But going on vacation after vacation makes it seem like she is partying it up, not laying low.
It was published publicly that Andrew pays £20,000 annual rent on the St James apartment.
£20K per year for an apartment in central London seems low to me based on what I read about real estate in London. That’s about £1700 per month. I don’t think that’s market value, not when bloody garages sell for seven figures!
That was part of the KP rent scandal, and it was royals and everyone else there (like Diana’s brother-in-law) who were paying reduced rents. What do other people at SJP pay in rent and is the amount for B&E’s apartment more or less than comparable space in SJP? Is there any way to check who else is in SJP and what they pay in rent? It is a government building but are those records public?
When I leaved in the UK most people thought they would die if they didn’t ‘go on holiday this year’ some I think even do it just to say they went on holiday. But 4 holidays in such a short amount of time is excessive. It reminds me of Coleen Rooney, forever going on holiday.
She’s also a victim of a spoiled father and a foolish mother who are sinking any chance both girls have at getting in good with Charles.
in the end she is just a rich daughter. Her postition is semi-private, because she doesn´t work for the crown and will never work as a full time royal (because “they” don´t allow it) so she has to find her way. Considering that her family and boyfriend are rich she does what other rich girls do between jobs (which sounds boring as hell). I would judge her harder if she would be a working royal, but she is in an unfortunate/ fortunate position. She is neither full-time royal nor full-time commoner. Her family background will always open doors but in the same way it always will be in her way. And as a woman people will judge her (choices, looks etc) more than a man.
It´s interesting that DailyMail attacks her with sensational headlines but they never write about William…the man who needs glasses and is colour blind but still manages to get his pilot-licence after 3 months of training… yes maybe DailyMail should have the balls to question what William is doing and why he gets away with it… After all he is more important than his cousins and committed to serve his country.
Beatrice is a private citizen with famous and infamous relatives. I’m waiting to hear more about the rumored BBC local news program from a few days ago. Someone stated no one has seen William in Norfolk at training or at Anmer Hall in months.
If she were a private citizen we wouldn’t be reading about her, nas. She is a member of the royal family. None of them are what I’d call a private citizen.
If she plays her cards right she could still forge a life as a royal. Look how many engagements are carried out by even more distant members of the RF now; the ones who are getting on in years, like the Gloucesters and Kents. If part of Charles’ family doesn’t buck up, there’s going to be a lot more to do and not enough people to do it in a couple of years. Beatrice and Eugenie could be well placed if they chose. Either that or Charles would have to cut back on what/where they go/do for lack of help.
That’s where they’re balanced on the knife’s edge. Lady Sarah Chatto and Linley are members of the royal family and private citizens. Beatrice, Eugenie, Peter, Zara are the same. They’re all private citizens with famous relatives.
I’d like to hear you say that to Andrew, nas. Seriously. Considering the big stink they made about blood Princesses (my understanding is that they take that stuff seriously; hence the infamous order of precedence so they didn’t have to curtsey to Kate), I think he would take huge umbrage at his daughters being called private citizens. I might be wrong, but I doubt it, and I’d bet you on that one.
If they were private citizens, they’d have to curtsey to Kate all the time like the rest of the people you mentioned do, but they don’t. Because they are blood princesses.
It doesn’t matter whether or not Andrew would be upset at the designation. They are part of a family, and with membership in that family comes the traditions of that family (curtseys and all). But they are not working royals, so therefore they are private citizens — famous ones, but still private citizens.
Autumn Philips follows the curtsey rules and she is a private citizen. Zara, Peter, Lindley and Chatto follow the same family traditions — and they are all private citizens too. Someone else pointed out the Kennedys, which is as good a reference as any. Members of a famous family but still private citizens.
I know they all curtsey to each other, at least when HM is around. But the point was they only have a few people THEY have to curtsey to, They rank fairly high in the precedence list. Everyone else has to curtsey to them. It’s hard to argue private citizen status when they’re 5th and 6th in line to the throne, their dad’s a prince, they are princesses, they live in palaces, and call the queen granny.
Personally I think Charles will be begging for them to do something if things keep up with William and Kate.
HM’s rules of precedence will go by the wayside when she passes. Beatrice and Eugenie are private citizens who were saddled with unnecessary titles 20 years ago. They’re like James, Louis, Peter, and Zara — except they have titles they probably shouldn’t have.
They are just titles but that doesn’t magically endow them with anything special, they’re still private citizens. They will fade into the background and the titles will be meaningless overall in a decade, or sooner if they marry.
I feel like Harry and Zara are the only ones that have something going on. Harry has his military stuff and Zara has her equestrian thing. The rest of them are as lazy as they come especially William who will one day be king and he can’t even manage to make an appearance to any of his charities he hasn’t been seen in months guess he’s too busy trying to come up with new excuses to get out of work.
UK people should make them work for their living instead of handing out pocket money every month out of their own pockets, rich or poor! Let them deal with it.
Beatrice lives off her trust fund, not the taxpayers.
where did this trust found come from and what is a civil list?
Her trust comes from Andrew & what he was given by the Queen as the 2nd son. The Civil list is the annual grant that covers expenses for working royals, like staffing, travel, etc. Beatrice is not a working royal, therefore everything she has comes from her trust fund and her earnings.
From what I understand the Queen sets up a fund for every child. They all have one, even William and Harry. There is no civil list any more; that’s now the Sovereign Grant and goes to the Queen.
But where did the trust fund money originally come from?
A decade before she died, the Queen Mother put 2/3 of her private money (roughly $50 million in today’s money) into trust funds for all of her great grandchildren. Successful tax dodge.
I expect a similar tax dodge will happen with Gatcombe Park. If Peter and Zara live there for X number of years before Anne passes, and can prove they are the ones running the estate, there is a chance they avoid estate taxes.
Loopy, every royal in the mainline has a trust fund. The royals leave bequests etc going back centuries. As soon as one is born, they start making provisions towards one.
They all gain access to these family trust funds at 25. Beatrice is 26. At this point, Andrew may not be funding her as she has access to her trust now.
The civil list is the old name for the portion of government money given to HM to carry out her duties and to maintain the palaces. It comes from an estate that traditionally used to fund the government which included the royal household. This estate was managed by the monarch. Eventually, management of the estate was handed to parliament to manage in exchange for the Monarch receiving the portion that covered the royal household as well as their duties to government. This expenses reimbursement came to be called the civil list. That’s as simply as I can explain it.
It’s now called called the Sovereign grant.
The rest of the revenues from the estate are used by the treasury to pay for government, Judiciary and public services as they always have.
Ps: there is a myth that this estate belongs to the royals as personal property, but that is not true. It was carved out right at the beginning of ‘England’ between 1066-13th century to pay for the instrument of government which in those days included the royal household as the Monarch was very much part of governent. The monarch was in charge of managing it, but it was very badly managed and often in debt necessitating sparodic tax raising from the peasants – this activity always had to be approved by Parliament.
Since Parliament took over managing it, it’s been in profit though the taxes have become a permanent thing.
I sense a changing tide. I think everyone, including the Queen and lesser royals, is going to let Charles see his great plan in action. That means no more “help” from willing royals like Bea and the Glouchesters. William & Kate are his chosen ones. So he can choke on their laziness. Beatrice isn’t required to do more and she’s not. Charles wants to streamline the monarchy and despite Beatrice’s honest efforts to prove her worth, he hasn’t budged from his stance. So why try?
Four vacations in that short amount of time does seem quite excessive even for a royal. But she’s rich AND a royal so I’m not that shocked.
Is it possible she had to leave because of the hacks, i.e. maybe there was a security issue? She IS a royal, and perhaps something happened, such as NK obtained some highly classified information and she had to leave for her/their safety.
Let’s go straight to a William conspiracy theory. The DM picked up comments made by Graham Smith, head of the group Republic, whose name should tell you their mission and purpose. I very much doubt William’s PR team needed to encourage Smith to speak out. That is his actual job.
Beatrice spent much of last year on vacation, all of this year thus far on vacation, has a suite at her father’s house and a four bedroom flat at St James that was renovated with tax payer money. Yeah, I’d say she is a benefits scrounger.
As for the friend speaking on her behalf, eh. I guess we will know soon enough if she gets a job.
She had a job at Sony all of last year. She didn’t spend it on vacation, she spent it working a paying job and doing charity work on the side. Photographic evidence exists. St James Palace is officially part of the Royal Residences, and any work on those is funded by money to the Monarch. Refit done by that, decor paid for privately. If the apartment had been refitted for the government official who was living there before, would you also have protested the Civil List / Sovereign Grant money being used?
Market value rent on that apartment is paid by Andrew, whereas no rent is paid on the empty 57 room KP mansion for W&K. Whether Andrew pays with his Sovereign Grant allowance or the mystery private money he used to by the new Swiss chalet is anybody’s guess.
BTW, I’m glad you’re back. I was worried you were mired in the awful storm-after-storm snow hell that keeps hitting the east coast.
Last year she went to St Bart’s twice, Spain, France, U.S. , Abu Dhabi, and Switzerland. Not to mention Ascot, Wimbeldon, etc.
Read LAK’s info above about amount of vacation time in the UK.
I did, nas, and Beatrice exceeded it. Do you really think anyone’s going to tell her “no” if she wants to do something?
The Daily Mail did an article about all Beatrice’s holidays late in 2014. I read it when it came out. It was before the Sony leaks and there was a dig or two about how she and her boyfriend could take all the time off they do if they really were working full time jobs.
I suspect, again as private citizens, that their schedules are between them and their employers. I get that lots of people want to criticize Beatrice and bash her for whatever, but she is a private citizen. Famous, and a member of a famous family, but still a private citizen.
P.S. I got stuck on the west coast for a few days due to the snow.
I hope the weather was good on the west coast while you were trapped there!
As I said, do you think her boss is going to say no to the queen’s granddaughter? Also, as you were arguing that she hadn’t gone over the standard holiday time in the UK, and threw out the private citizen argument instead, does that mean you’re conceding that point? 😀
I’ll look into the “private citizen” argument, even though I don’t buy it for a second. But if I’m wrong I’ll concede the point. Do you hve anything you can throw out on that?
I think you could argue it both ways, to be honest.
She’s not counted in the court circular, and isn’t paid by either one of the Duchies or the Sovereign Grant. This makes her a minor Royal by birth and a private citizen by official position.
But she does some of the old fashioned philanthropy that is the noblesse oblige tradition for the royals and other aristocrats and her father, who is paid by the Sovereign Grant, clearly is responsible for some of her lifestyle.
I think you just go with your personal bias and call it that.
BTW – a high quality 4-bed apartment in Central London would rent out at at least £5k per month. So there’s no way £20k annually is market rate.
I was pointing out that you’d explained the limit in the UK is much higher than the US. You explained some work places may offer more vacation than the legal limit. A vacation day or two at Wimbledon isn’t breaking the vacation bank. I’ve frequently had jobs that require night and weekend shifts, why assume that her job is M-F 9-5? She could be at Wimbledon on a Tuesday and working/filming on Saturday.
If Sony had trouble saying no to the Queen’s granddaughter, they’d be happy to have her move on. If they didn’t like the amount of time she takes off, they wouldn’t be trying to lure her back. William’s former employers seem happy to see the back of him, but Beatrice’s are trying to re-hire her.
“This makes her a minor Royal by birth and a private citizen by official position.” And Sixer explains in one sentence the point I’ve been unable to make in a dozen paragraphs!
I’d be inclined to see your point Megan if you apply the same rules to William and Kate. Are they benefit scroungers?
Since William has not had an official engagement yet this year, I’d say he is leading the scrounging pack right now.
I wonder where the income of the Princesses comes from? It is certainly not “earned” in a meritocratic private business kind of way.
Princess Beatrice and Eugenie have two sources of income: their own work and their parents. As neither of them earns enough to fund their lavish lifestyles it is their parents who pay. And as Fergie seem bancrupt most of the time it is her father Prince Andrew who funds his daughters. And Prince Andrew gets a handsome allowance from the civil list.
In other words: Princess Beatrice gets money via her father from the Civil list.
And maybe a trust fund. You have to wonder where is the money for her trust fund from
And how can Prince Andrew afford to buy a chalet? He hardly does any work at all and I thought it was forbidden to bribe Royals? And isn’t Andrew still in hot water for socialising with that pedophile/pederast/pimp billionaire called Epstein?
I think Prince Charles is right in cutting down the Royal Family. Hardly any of them do any notworthy important work at all. Prince Charles’ and Prince Phillip’s pet projects are nice but they do hardly justify the costly funding of the Royals.
See above. Her trust fund came from the Queen Mother.
See my answer above.
Tell it to John Major. Whatever happened, he approved it. Part of why she died in debt was because of this trust. She had to live 7 years past the establishment for it to be tax-free. She lived 10 more with all of the money she inherited from her husband, parents, and her investments tied in the trust. Prior to the trust, she had probably used this personal money to subsidize what she received from HM via Civil List.
Royal Watchers – please go to Youtube to see Reinventing the Royals Season 1 Episode 1. It covers Diana’s death, Mark Bolland taking over Charles’ PR and William & Harry privacy during school. Victoria Arbiter has a link up on her twitter. Next week, there is a clip that looks to cover William & Kate’s courtship.
This is the documentary Charles tried to block that aired on the BBC!
Ooh, thanks! Skipping over there right now.
I’m disgusted you would even write this. Princess Beatrice is a PRIVATE CITIZEN. She does not work for the Crown, all her charity visits and work are out of the goodness of hear own heart. She can do whatever she wants in her private time. She does not recieve any tax payer money. Perhaps her father does and spends some of it on her housing and security–but HE EARNS IT BY WORKING HARD.
Also keep in mind, her boyfriend is quite wealthy in his own right-he’s probably paying for the vacations.
She has the title princess, therefore private citizen arguement doesn’t work – whatever the legalities. Andrew wanted the royal titles for his daughters where Anne didn’t & Edward has given his lesser titles. TBH in her position she should do as Zara or run her own business/charity of some sort she has connections she could do some real good with, wasted in private sector. From the arts to health she could do a lot more for UK.
Penny what do you think she and Eugenie are trying to do? That’s why Eugenie has a job in New York, because she’s trying to make her way as a private citizen. That’s why Beatrice has had two jobs and is in the running for more.
And why, exactly, do you think Beatrice is required to do “a lot more for UK” when Zara and Peter are not? I think Andrew wanted Beatrice and Eugenie to be working royals, that was the logical assumption, so that’s why they were given titles. Charles only made his whittling down decision in the past few years, which makes the awarding of titles 20+ years ago pretty much irrelevant. Beatrice and Eugenie will fade into life as private citizens and the titles won’t matter.
i am saying it, from the perspective that Beatrice seems to be stuck without focus or ambition and taking 4 hols in two months is too much. And, Prince Andrew has campaigned for a larger role for his two daughters as part of Monarchy. If it is something that Bea wants to be part of, even unofficially, she could be making a better case for herself. She’s wasted in a £20,000 a year job – with her expensive education and connections? not good show really.
Zara does a lot for sport promoting UK in sporting circles, and has started her own business. I don’t know about Peter, but Zara and Peter hold no royal titles and Princess Anne from the moment they were born kept them out of the official Royal loop.
Given unemployment levels in the UK, she’s lucky to have a job. You want her to use her connections to get a higher paying job, and then people would criticize her for using connections. If this Sony job is/was what she wants to do as a private citizen, who are you to judge? If she took a job making £20,000 ($31,000) working for Oxfam would you criticize that too?
Beatrice is patron of seven charities. I think that’s a lot of charity work for someone who isn’t required to do any, and makes a pretty good case for her commitment right there.
Through no fault of her own, she has been saddled with a title but is still a private citizen. The title will soon mean nothing and I doubt Dave will be given a title if they marry. The fact of her useless title will become less important as the years go by.
If by working hard you mean being a bottom feeder, then yes, Prince Andrew works hard.
Hi Murphy, Celebitchy writes about private citizens all the time. You know, the ones in the public eye. I disagree with you that she is considered a private citizen, unless all the royals are considered private citizens? She’s an HRH with a title of Princess who lives in a Palace. We should all be so private.
She’s famous but still a private citizen, Bluhare, no matter what title she has. She’s not paid to be a working royal, she happens to have a famous granny who is funded by the taxpayers.
I will concede she is certainly a minor royal. I still am having real trouble with private citizen.
Her father is not a private citizen, but she and her sister are. It is a new direction for the BRF, and Anne and Edward took the hint/lead better than Andrew did. B&E have essentially meaningless titles, that’s the difference. The next Charles/Andrew fight will be if she loses her HRH if she marries after HM passes. I can see HM keeping Beatrice and Eugenie as HRH after marriage, but if Charles is king that could change to HH or nothing at all.
p.s. I think Eugenie is HM’s favorite too. Weird since she looks just like HM’s mother and that was NOT an easy relationship.
@notasugarhere – I think you’re right. After HM passes away, Charles is going to machete his way through his family cutting people off even more so than now, taking away the HRH and whatnot. Even Diana got her HRH taken away even though she was the mother to a future king. This family can be mean.
@notasugarhere – I think you’re right. After HM passes away, Charles is going to machete his way through his family cutting people off even more so than now, taking away the HRH and whatnot. Even Diana got her HRH taken away even though she was the mother to a future king. This family can be mean.
Hahaha what bank holidays? I hardly get holidays off here in the US. My company is a subsidiary of a well known global corporation-you all have used their services at one time or another so we follow their schedule. We don’t get MLK off or Presidents’ Day. Memorial Day, July 4th, Labor Day, Thanksgiving, Christmas, and New Year’s. No Columbus Day, no Veteran’s Day. That’s 6 holidays a year and no more. I had to request Black Friday and Christmas Eve off.
does anyone noticed that she looks exactly like Steve-O ?????
Ohmggawd. I cannot unsee it now!
Meh, she’s not a working royal. Charle’s new vision for the monarchy means there will be a period of adjustment where some royals are still living in royal residences without being a working royal, that isn’t the younger royals fault.
She’s a wealthy young woman, of course she’s going to go on a lot of vacations. At her age I was working for 6 months, then travelling for 6 months. My wealthier colleagues were always negotiated flexible hours/days so they could go on vacation.
Prince Andrew is NOT paying market rent for the four bedroom apartment in St James Palace it’s about a quarter what a normal would pay. And it wasn’t just a small reno either it cost over 250 thousand pound which is nearly half a million dollars here in Oz all at taxpayers expense. As for Beatrices charity work your kidding me. Going to a party is NOT charity work and she has done a couple of engagements on her own (although she took time off her “real” job to do them) Kate has actually done more then Beatrice and has had less holidays that says alot. Problem is Beatrice is like her mother lazy, loves a freebie and high end vacation at someone elses expanse. It exactly why Charles would never allow her a real role in the family and since the Queen knows she probably is going to be around long she won’t be handing any sort of real role to Beatrice, Charles will just take it away. The only reason Andrew wants his daughters to be “official” is so they can get on the civil list. Charles is said to dislike Fergie and isn’t too happy with Andrew and Beatrice does not get along with William so she won’t be doing anything. Beatrice is just playing at career girl she will marry rich then do the odd charity work the writing is on the wall. She hasn’t been able to stick to anything it interferes with her vacations!
Fantastic lifestyle. The kind one would love to experience before dying. Aznews.co.uk
I’m of 2 minds. I personally think Beatrice is a very sweet and lovely young lady. On the other hand, there is an element of ‘rich girl, no work, go to lots of jetset parties in St Barts and elsewhere’ with her. She, Eugenie, William and Harry all share some of the same friends and a lot of them sort of have that feel. She, and her father, may like her to be a full-time royal but it’s not going to happen so it’s time to find a real job–even if it’s just parttime and the rest of it is charity work. She just seems a bit aimless. And her boyfriend always struck me as really skeevy–and he gets no flack as a ‘waity’ considering they’ve been together for years. Maybe some relationships just enjoy taking their time. But he’s a step up from the last boyfriend she had–who was a criminal. That boyfriend, Paolo Liuzzo, killed a man during a drunken brawl (charged with manslaughter, pled down to assault), was into cocaine, had a habit of trying to run out on hotel & restaurant bills and dangerous driving. Beatrice was just 17 at the time (he was about 7-8 years older) and it was with her parent’s blessing. The relationship only ended when it became public and it was realized that he was violating his probation by hopscotching around Europe with the Yorks. WTF With Sarah dragging those girls around as her ticket to parties & Dad running around with pedophiles it’s surprising that they ended up so well adjusted. I just see her eventually settling down and living a (monetarily) rich life and being involved in charities and whatnot–much like a good bit of the British aristocracy that she runs with. Doesn’t mean she’s an awful person or lazy–I just think she needs to find a real, fulfilling purpose. And I think she’s prettier (lovely hair) than the press sometimes writes about and her fashion sense has markedly improved over the years. She gets a lot of flak for her wedding hat but a) after the royal couple (and Pippa’s bum) it’s probably what most people remember and b) she parlayed that into raising about GBP80,000 for charity by auctioning it off.
I give Beatrice more leeway than William & Kate in this because, iirc:
1) she’s not on the civil list aka getting a taxpayer paycheck (though yes, her family’s money comes from taxpayers basically).
2) Uncle Charles doesn’t want her in his plan to slim down the monarchy and thus doesn’t support her having any major roles to serve.
From The Daily Beast (April 3, 2012):
“Beatrice lobbied to accompany her father on a forthcoming trip to India, when he will be representing the Queen in her Diamond Jubilee year, but courtiers vetoed the idea, effectively killing Beatrice’s ambition to become a ‘working royal’ stone dead.”
“The move to strip the princesses of their protection officers represents a significant victory for Andrew’s brother, Prince Charles, who believes the monarchy needs to be slimmed down and does not see major roles for Bea and Eugenie if and when he accedes to the throne, believing that the focus should stay on his children, William and Harry. ”
Though yes, as part of the Royal family and being so privileged, Beatrice should do more charity work if only to make her and her immediate family look better.
3) Uncle Charles took away her Royal security guards because that’s how much he doesn’t want her and her sister to be part of the main Royal family (Andrew now pays the expenses out of his own pocket).
4) She doesn’t get the benefits and perks like William & Kate does.
5) Her father’s scandal of allegedly being involved in an underage prostitution social circle for years is just overwhelming. I don’t know if there are many charities that would want her and her immediate family around them at this time, though I think she should go back to work and give the public a better image of her family.
I don’t think there can be a fair comparison of Beatrice’s position and responsibilities to those of William’s and Kate’s. Like they say, “To those whom much is given, much is expected.” That fits W&K more than it does Beatrice, especially since W&K are going to inherit the throne and thus they need to be better representatives of their positions and their country.
isn’t that the point of being a princess??